Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
on the united states because we still get a large part of our energy from the region. i traveled to azerbaijan an armenian in early september. and i also stopped in georgia and met with the president. when i talked to these leaders, iran was one of the things that came up at the very beginning, because they'll feel the influence and the aggressive attitude underneath cover so to speak of iran. in particular, i think azerbaijan feels a great deal of concern, and when i talked to the president, members of parliament and others, it was readily apparent to me that they thought that there ought to be closer ties between azerbaijan and the united states, and georgia, and hopefully armenia. because iran is really trying to destabilize or undermine those governments are we believe that is their long-term goal. iran has been involved in terrorism as we know for some time. it's partly unique in that area. we have seen the i-beam regime operating through organizations such as republican guard and employ such tactics around the globe including right here in washington, d.c. however, the proximity of the s
for canadian oil and energy generally that the iea is saying that the u.s. will be able to meet its own oil and gas means in a decade? do you worry about markets for canadian energy? >> everybody knows our view on keystone. it is not just a great project, but a great security project. it makes more sense to bring north american oil into the united states than venezuelan or far eastern or middle eastern oil. there is a process in the united states. the president will let the process play out he will make a decision. i accept him at his word on that. in the context of keystone, it has been a bit of an opportunity for this country to understand that we do need to sell our energy products outside the united states. canada is the most energy of funded country in the world. canada will be a significant supplier of the energy sources of the future. it makes no sense in a global economy that we are and for canada to sell all of its energy products furtively exclusively to its own marketer or to the u.s. energy -- people in the energy business understand that have to look for other opportunities. >>
bills. .. >> the entry of the energy bill to parliament now means we can get out there and sell to all of the energy companies the very clear and stable framework that the u.k. has for offshore wind, for nuclear, for renewables and, indeed, for gas. i think it's a very positive development, there's a huge amount of potential, pent-up investment, and we need to make sure that results in british jobs and apprenticeships, and the government is fully committed to making that happen. >> [inaudible] pruitt. >> the prime minister obviously believes within the leveson report, there exists something that is bonkers. how would the prime minister give the views of his planning minister who has said tens of thousands of new homes will have to be built on greenfield sites. >> i think it is absolutely clear, yes, we should build on brownfield land, yes, we should try and deal with the problem of empty homes, but we do have to have a conversation about the need to build more flats and more houses, where we don't have the current situation we have where if you don't have the help of mom and dad, peopl
to cloture on the bill after eight days on energy legislation in 2003. i remember senator dorgan say what's the rush? we've only been on the hill for eight days? i remember cracking up. eight hours was a long time and after so you're right about the leverage of time. but that leverage its use to affect changes in legislation because essentially let's have a mandate, but said this change and then i will get back time. [inaudible] how can you think it thursday and friday and have a recess? whenever we had a recess we had a flurry of activity because everybody wanted to get out of time. time is an important lever. spent now will go to our audience. who would like to ask the first question? [inaudible] you seem surprised at the number of filibusters we've had in four years. do you not relate it back to the in transit and unwillingness ability to reach out to the minority party? >> actually, you can take it back to the last two years of the bush administration when it shot up dramatically as well. so it's not simply a barack obama phenomenon. but i don't. what we see both from my own work insi
on energy and environment and education that the president had a vision for where america needs to be in this new century where we've got rising competition in china and germany and india and if we're going to have an american century we cannot come in second place to those countries in technology of the future. and i think that played an important role. there was a sense that the obama vision was one that they thought better suited this moment in our country's history. and there is no question on social issues whether it's women's healthcare or immigration. there was asset of issues that for younger voters was important to think about the kind of country and kind of president they wanted representing them. so on all those questions people wrestled carefully. i think that's why ultimately enough people in enough battleground states chose the president to continue this journey we're on. quickly in terms of demoggrafi. we don't know this for sure but we could be seeing different elections in on years and off years. the election in 2014 is going to be different than presidential le
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5